If the average temp is x then the variance around it will be set by that average.

If as has happened the average temp goes up a degree then ALL averages are going to be reflecting that 1 degree change. So citing that average temps are higher now then they were when the temp was lower mean nothing. That is common sense and reality.

In the early 1900's the prediction was that over the century the temperature would rise by 1 degree. That is about what happened. Yet we are to run around with our heads lopped off because a 100 year old prediction came true.

Our knowledge of climate and climate change is so poor we can only make guesses what will occur. Our knowledge of weather patterns and such are based entirely on OBSERVED data. We can estimate based on OBSERVED data what the weather will be like fort about 2 weeks.

We base all our climate estimates for weather conditions like Hurricanes and such off OBSERVED data over time. We can not even get those estimates right on a monthly basis.

Unless you can show a permanent spike in temps the fact that yearly averages are higher now then 10 or 20 years ago means absolutely nothing other then the fact our average temperature in fact went up about 1 and a half degrees.

The only concern about that was the fact that about half a degree occurred in a 20 year period. And that stopped in 1998.

And there still is no credible evidence that man caused that rise in temp.

The claim made by some was that rising C)2 caused the temperature increase and that man was the reason for the CO2 increase. If that were in fact the case then from 1998 to present we would have seen about half a degree increase in world temperature Averages. And we have not.

There is no functional factual theory that makes the temp increase man made.

In the early 1900's the prediction was that over the century the temperature would rise by 1 degree.

Click to expand...

Huh? Who made this prediction?

We can estimate based on OBSERVED data what the weather will be like for about 2 weeks.

Click to expand...

Confusing-climate-with-weather fallacy.

Unless you can show a permanent spike in temps

Click to expand...

Done. The last few years are all hot. The spike is permanent. Except for the getting hotter part. 2013 will probably break all the old records, with a solar peak and an El Nino building.

And that stopped in 1998.

Click to expand...

The "warming stopped in 1998!" fallacy. You're hitting a lot of the standard denialist list of bad logic and fallacies.

And there still is no credible evidence that man caused that rise in temp.

Click to expand...

Sure there is. We could go over it, but you'd handwave it all away as a liberal conspiracy, so what's the point?

If that were in fact the case then from 1998 to present we would have seen about half a degree increase in world temperature Averages. And we have not.

Click to expand...

Half a degree, no. It's been about 0.25C/decade, so a little less. But it's been what AGW theory predicted. That's why AGW theory has credibility, because it's been making successful predictions for decades.

There is no functional factual theory that makes the temp increase man made.

Click to expand...

There's no theory that you can understand. Not our problem. You can't understand a lot of science, but it's still valid. The absorption spectrum of CO2 won't change because your political cult doesn't believe in the physics.

But since pictures might help, here's an illustration of the fallacy of your "warming stopped in 1998!" statement.

There's no theory that you can understand. Not our problem. You can't understand a lot of science, but it's still valid. The absorption spectrum of CO2 won't change because your political cult doesn't believe in the physics.

But since pictures might help, here's an illustration of the fallacy of your "warming stopped in 1998!" statement.

That denialist claim was debunked around 2005. But it's an interesting illustration of how good the models are.

The models said the tropospheric temp should be increasing at all levels.

The satellite measurements disagreed.

The modellers said "No, your measurements have to be wrong, because they disagree with all the other data. Recheck your calibrations."

They rechecked their calibrations. The satellites had been measuring wrong. When calibrations were fixed, satellites showed tropospheric temps had been increasing all along.

Much the same thing happened with sea surface temperatures. The rational people will look at it as evidence of how good the models are. The crazy political cultists will declare it proves a massive worldwide conspiracy to fudge the data to match the models. And being that they are brainwashed cultists, it will be impossible to ever disprove to them that such a conspiracy happened, as all efforts to do so are clearly just part of the conspiracy.

If the average temp is x then the variance around it will be set by that average.

If as has happened the average temp goes up a degree then ALL averages are going to be reflecting that 1 degree change. So citing that average temps are higher now then they were when the temp was lower mean nothing. That is common sense and reality.

In the early 1900's the prediction was that over the century the temperature would rise by 1 degree. That is about what happened. Yet we are to run around with our heads lopped off because a 100 year old prediction came true.

Our knowledge of climate and climate change is so poor we can only make guesses what will occur. Our knowledge of weather patterns and such are based entirely on OBSERVED data. We can estimate based on OBSERVED data what the weather will be like fort about 2 weeks.

We base all our climate estimates for weather conditions like Hurricanes and such off OBSERVED data over time. We can not even get those estimates right on a monthly basis.

Unless you can show a permanent spike in temps the fact that yearly averages are higher now then 10 or 20 years ago means absolutely nothing other then the fact our average temperature in fact went up about 1 and a half degrees.

The only concern about that was the fact that about half a degree occurred in a 20 year period. And that stopped in 1998.

And there still is no credible evidence that man caused that rise in temp.

The claim made by some was that rising C)2 caused the temperature increase and that man was the reason for the CO2 increase. If that were in fact the case then from 1998 to present we would have seen about half a degree increase in world temperature Averages. And we have not.

There is no functional factual theory that makes the temp increase man made.

There's no theory that you can understand. Not our problem. You can't understand a lot of science, but it's still valid. The absorption spectrum of CO2 won't change because your political cult doesn't believe in the physics.

But since pictures might help, here's an illustration of the fallacy of your "warming stopped in 1998!" statement.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In other words, the data does not agree with you political views.

Pattycake, reality is what it is, and has zero respect for your asinine political views. You can ignore reality all you please, but it will not ignore you. Reality is going to visit you and the rest of the world on the grocery shelves as the effects of the agricultural damage from the ongoing climate change impacts the price of food.

Again I say............how is it mattering? All this consensus science?

Ive seen that CARBON DIOXIDE GREENHOUSE EFFECT link posted up in here at least 500 times in the past few years. To what end exactly?

I fail to see how it is mattering in the least! Cap and Trade is totally in the crapper and everyone and their brother see the fauxness in public monies being used for the current gay green technology.

Not one radical in here has been able to post up anything in here except more gay science links that nobody cares about except the internet OCD goofballs.

That denialist claim was debunked around 2005. But it's an interesting illustration of how good the models are.

The models said the tropospheric temp should be increasing at all levels.

The satellite measurements disagreed.

The modellers said "No, your measurements have to be wrong, because they disagree with all the other data. Recheck your calibrations."

They rechecked their calibrations. The satellites had been measuring wrong. When calibrations were fixed, satellites showed tropospheric temps had been increasing all along.

Much the same thing happened with sea surface temperatures. The rational people will look at it as evidence of how good the models are. The crazy political cultists will declare it proves a massive worldwide conspiracy to fudge the data to match the models. And being that they are brainwashed cultists, it will be impossible to ever disprove to them that such a conspiracy happened, as all efforts to do so are clearly just part of the conspiracy.

Click to expand...

The claim has never been debunked, nimrod. Here is the latest chart from Dr Roy Spencer:

Pattycake, reality is what it is, and has zero respect for your asinine political views. You can ignore reality all you please, but it will not ignore you. Reality is going to visit you and the rest of the world on the grocery shelves as the effects of the agricultural damage from the ongoing climate change impacts the price of food.

Click to expand...

No, the data is fraudulent. In your mind, if it agrees with your political views, then it must be true. However, the evidence for deliberate tampering is massive. Climategate I and II are just a small part of it. All the major temperature data bases have been discredited.

That denialist claim was debunked around 2005. But it's an interesting illustration of how good the models are.

The models said the tropospheric temp should be increasing at all levels.

The satellite measurements disagreed.

The modellers said "No, your measurements have to be wrong, because they disagree with all the other data. Recheck your calibrations."

They rechecked their calibrations. The satellites had been measuring wrong. When calibrations were fixed, satellites showed tropospheric temps had been increasing all along.

Much the same thing happened with sea surface temperatures. The rational people will look at it as evidence of how good the models are. The crazy political cultists will declare it proves a massive worldwide conspiracy to fudge the data to match the models. And being that they are brainwashed cultists, it will be impossible to ever disprove to them that such a conspiracy happened, as all efforts to do so are clearly just part of the conspiracy.

Click to expand...

The claim has never been debunked, nimrod. Here is the latest chart from Dr Roy Spencer:

Click to expand...

Amazing thing about that graph. The very strong La Nina of 2010-2011, and the first few months of 2012 resulted in a running average low that was higher than any running average high point prior to 1998. And now we are in an ENSO neutral period, and higher than any high point, period, prior to 1998.

What that graph shows is what every other indicator has been showing. That superimposed on the normal variation in weather is a rapidly increasing warming, one which is now changing the climate.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!